DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Report IV

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Report IV Final Report Volume IV VOLUME IV NOVEMBER 2020 Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants Final Report Volume IV The Honourable Margaret McMurdo, AC Commissioner ORDERED TO BE PUBLISHED Victorian Government Printer November 2020 PP No. 175, Session 2018–2020 Final Report: Volume IV 978-0-6485592-4-5 Published November 2020 ISBN: Volume I 978-0-6485592-1-4 Volume II 978-0-6485592-2-1 Volume III 978-0-6485592-3-8 Volume IV 978-0-6485592-4-5 Summary and Recommendations 978-0-6485592-5-2 Suggested citation: Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Final Report, November 2020). Contents Chapter 14: The use and disclosure of information from human sources in the criminal justice system 4 Chapter 15: Legal profession regulation 66 Chapter 16: Issues arising during the conduct of the Commission’s inquiry 120 Chapter 17: Work beyond the Commission 152 14 The use and disclosure of information from human sources in the criminal justice system INTRODUCTION Term of reference 4 required the Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the current use of information in the criminal justice system from human sources who are subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege. Term of reference 4 also directed the Commission to examine a very specific aspect of disclosure in criminal cases; namely, the appropriateness of Victoria Police’s practices for the disclosure or non-disclosure of the use of such human sources to prosecuting authorities. Term of reference 5b required the Commission to consider measures that may be necessary to address any systemic or other failures arising from the use of information obtained from human sources subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege in the criminal justice system, and how such failures may be avoided in the future. It is important to acknowledge that the disclosure practices that existed throughout the period that Ms Nicola Gobbo was providing information to Victoria Police differ in many respects to current practices. Some of those historical practices and their application to the events relevant to terms of reference 1 and 2 are discussed in Chapter 9. 4 THE USE AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FROM HUMAN SOURCES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM This chapter does not address these historical practices but instead sets out how the current law and policy operate and the Commission’s conclusions about the adequacy and appropriateness of current practices. As required by term of reference 4, this chapter also considers whether there are adequate safeguards for how: • Victoria Police prosecutes summary proceedings • the Victorian Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) prosecutes indictable proceedings on behalf of the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Prosecutors play a vital role in ensuring that criminal proceedings are conducted fairly. They have several well-defined duties, including the duty of disclosure. For a prosecutor to fulfil their role effectively, it is critical that they have knowledge of material that is relevant to an accused person’s case. This includes any information that could undermine that person’s right to a fair trial. The prosecution needs all relevant information to assess whether a fair trial can occur. Without this information, the prosecution is unable to safeguard against the risk of an unfair trial. The importance of the prosecution being aware of all matters relevant to an accused person’s case is starkly illustrated in the events that led to this inquiry. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria observed that because the matters relating to Ms Gobbo’s role as a human source were subject to a public interest immunity (PII) claim and Victoria Police did not disclose this information to the DPP or the court before the relevant convictions, there was no possibility of a prosecution being withdrawn or trial being stayed (stopped either temporarily or indefinitely). As the Court of Appeal stated, the failure of the Chief Commissioner to disclose the relevant matters to the DPP resulted in a ‘very difficult and unfortunate situation’.1 In Victoria, the law of PII typically operates to prevent the police and the prosecution from disclosing to an accused person that a human source has provided information relevant to their case. This is based on the need to protect the safety of the human source as well as the community benefits to be gained from the continued use of human sources, who may only provide information to police if confident that their identities will be protected. In most criminal proceedings in Victoria, police do not generally disclose to the prosecution the existence of a human source.2 Victoria Police’s practices for disclosing information from human sources who have legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege are essentially covered by the same laws and policies that regulate the use of human source information more generally in the criminal justice system. To address this term of reference, the Commission has therefore had to examine: • how disclosure operates in the criminal justice system more broadly • general principles that apply to the disclosure of human source information. It is important to note the limits of term of reference 4 and therefore the discussion in this chapter. Human sources can be used in the criminal justice system as either sources of information only or sources of information who are also witnesses. Term of reference 4 related to the use of human sources with legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege as sources of information only. Situations when a human source is involved as a co-accused in the criminal acts of the accused person, or when a human source becomes a witness, are outside the scope of term of reference 4. Having reviewed the current law and practice in this area and considered stakeholders’ views and experience, as well as the approach taken in other jurisdictions, the Commission considers that there is scope for reform in the conduct of criminal proceedings when an investigation has involved information from a human source. In particular, the Commission considers that Victoria Police’s processes for disclosing relevant material to prosecuting authorities should be strengthened. It recommends that disclosure certificates be introduced to remind Victoria Police officers of their disclosure obligations and encourage them to provide information to prosecuting authorities clearly and transparently. 5 ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE MANAGEMENT OF POLICE INFORMANTS The Commission also considers that there is scope to improve disclosure practices more broadly; in particular, positive cultural change, effective leadership and improved training of Victoria Police officers are crucial to achieving sustained and long-term improvements in disclosure practices. CURRENT CONTEXT AND LAW This section sets out current law and practice in Victoria regarding the use and disclosure of information from human sources who are subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege. It outlines: • the prosecution’s duty of disclosure in Victoria, including how disclosure operates more broadly in the criminal justice system and the key principles that govern the disclosure of human source information • the current processes and procedures for the disclosure of information subject to a PII claim • how police disclose information to prosecuting authorities in other Australian jurisdictions. The prosecution’s duty of disclosure In Victoria, as in other Australian jurisdictions, the prosecution’s duty of disclosure comes from a combination of legislation, common law and professional guidelines.3 Further, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (Charter) recognises that a person charged with a criminal offence in Victoria is entitled to be ‘informed promptly and in detail of the nature and reason for the charge’.4 Prosecutors have a significant role in the proper administration of justice. They represent and exercise the powers of the state; therefore, they have a duty to ensure that the prosecution’s case is presented fairly and impartially.5 The High Court of Australia recently described this duty as involving the prosecutor presenting to the court all ‘available, cogent and admissible evidence’.6 In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor’s role is not to obtain a conviction by any means necessary. Instead, it is to give the court all relevant and reliable evidence surrounding a case and to address the jury about how to use that evidence according to the law.7 The duty of disclosure is a key part of the prosecution’s duty to conduct cases fairly and to make an accused person aware of the case against them. Accordingly, the prosecution has a duty to disclose all evidence that is relevant to the case against the accused person, even if that evidence might undermine the prosecution’s case or help the accused person.8 For example, in a case where an accused person is charged with an armed robbery at a convenience store and their defence is that they were not present at the time of the robbery, evidence from a witness that identifies the accused person as the person who committed the robbery is relevant and supports the prosecution case. If another witness asserts that a different person committed the robbery, the prosecution should also disclose this information to the accused person, even if it undermines the prosecution case by showing that someone else may have committed the robbery. The duty of disclosure applies to ‘the prosecution’ in a broad sense. This includes police prosecutors, the DPP and other lawyers who act on behalf of the DPP to prosecute a criminal offence. This also means that for the purposes of the prosecution’s duty of disclosure, police are part of the prosecution.9 The reason for this is that the prosecutor can only fulfil their duty of disclosure to the extent that they know about the information that must be disclosed to the accused person, because they have been given the information.10 The prosecution therefore has a duty to disclose all relevant material that the police possess, regardless of whether the individual prosecutor is also aware of that information.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Com.0104.0001.0001 R1 P Com.0104.0001.0001 R1 Com.0104.0001,0001 0001
    COM.0104.0001.0001_R1_P COM.0104.0001.0001_R1 COM.0104.0001,0001_0001 I, SHARON ELIZABETH CURE of|_____ in the State of Tasmania DO SOLEMNLY and SINCERELY DECLARE THAT: 1. I have been a Magistrate in the State of Tasmania since 12 January 2015. 2 . I signed the Victorian Bar roll in March 2000 and practised as a barrister until I was appointed a Magistrate in Victoria in 2008.1 had previously been a solicitor with the Office of Public Prosecutions for 9 years. 3. In response to the requestfor information dated 8 February 2020 I make this statement addressing the specific topics contained in that request. 4. In 1999 I came to know Nicola Gobbo when I was prosecuting a prostitution control matter. She was defence counsel. I was concerned about her conduct in that matter. 5. Nothing subsequent changed my concern abouther. 6. I moved to Crockett Chambers in early 2005. 7. In 2006 Nicola Gobbo took over the room when a member of chambers went overseas. It was supposed to be a temporary arrangement enabled by Mr Heliotis QC. 8. In June of 2007 I occupied a room on the 7th floor. Later that year I moved to the 6th floor. 9. I believe I always locked my chambers. I was sharing with another barrister in some of 2007. I cannot exclude the possibility that the door was left unlocked. 10. A master key to all the rooms on the 7th floor was kept in the power box cupboard in the small hallway to the kitchen. That was well known and if access was needed to any chambers it was available to anyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Underbelly: the Gangland War Free
    FREE UNDERBELLY: THE GANGLAND WAR PDF Andrew Rule,John Silvester | 378 pages | 30 Jan 2009 | John Blake Publishing Ltd | 9781844547371 | English | London, United Kingdom ​Underbelly: The Gangland War on Apple Books As the Informer scandal continues to enthral the nation, Daily Mail Australia went about tracking down the women left behind after the bloodshed ended. Roberta Williams yellow beanie abuses Renata Laureano centre as she leaves court in Carl Williams' mother Barbara is pictured left, with George Williams at the back. Renata Laureano-Lovett went on to marry and have a family after her brief moment of fame. By Aprilthe caged Williams had split with his wife Roberta and the lonely criminal had bragged about being written to by a swathe of other women. Ms Laureano had appeared on the front page of a Melbourne paper supporting Williams in court. It sent the press into a frenzy and it was soon revealed who the stunning year old was. Despite Ms Laureano apparently never having any form of physical relationship with Williams, she came under the wrath of Roberta, who reportedly called her a 'trashy piece of effing carnage'. Moments before the Underbelly: The Gangland War of Williams's Victorian Supreme Court pre-sentence hearing that year, Roberta tapped on the glass window behind her husband in the courtroom dock and said to him: 'Pick her or your daughter. Ms Laureano was sitting just metres from her at the hearing - separated only by the gangster's parents, George and Barbara Williams. Renata Laureano-Lovett has got on with her life outside of the criminal underworld spotlight.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Terracini Honesty Is Such a Lonely Word
    ASPECTS OF ETHICS: Confidentiality, conflict, and duty to your client “EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court (AB v CD; EF v CD [2018] HCA 58 at [10].” On 3 December 2018, the Premier of Victoria announced that the Victorian Government would establish a Royal Commission to independently inquire into Victoria Police’s recruitment and management of a class of informants. The scope of that inquiry is summarised at the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants website1: As part of its inquiry, the Royal Commission will examine the number of, and extent to which, cases may have been affected by the conduct of Ms Nicola Gobbo, a criminal defence barrister who was, at various times between 1 January 1995 and 13 January 2009, acting as a police informant with Victoria Police. She was referred to as 'EF' in recent court cases, informant '3838' and other informant numbers by Victoria Police, and was often referred to as 'Lawyer X' in the media. In addition, the Commission will examine the adequacy and effectiveness of Victoria Police’s current processes for disclosures about recruiting, handling and managing human sources who are subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege, including any informants who come to the Commission’s attention during its inquiry. The Commission will also examine the use of such human source information in the broader criminal justice system, including whether these procedures should be used, and if so, how they can be best implemented in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • In Confidence
    VPL.2000.0002.0761_R5_PVPL.2000.0002.0761_R4_P VPL.2000.0002.0761 This document has been redacted for Public Interest Immunity claims made by Victoria Police. These claims are not yet resolved. ~'ltDT~-~l~~MAM4~~l~~~~~l~1'~~~"'-... ~~~ ~l~~~ X INTELLIGENCE DISSEMINATION The attached items are forwarded for your information and action as may be deemed necessary and are released on the understanding that you comply with the following. IN CONFIDENCE 1. This document is the property of the Victoria Police Force 2. No part is to be copied without the consent of the person named below. 3. The information it contains must not be conveyed to a third party without the consent of the person named below. 4. It must be kept securely stored when not in use to prevent unauthorised access. 5. If the document or its contents is likely to be the subject of any legal action, including a Freedom Of Information application, the person named below must be advised as soon as possible. 6. In the case of information which may have originated from a Commonwealth Department, the Commonwealth Privacy Act, 1988, and Commonwealth Freedom Of Information Act, 1982, are applicable. "A Person, body or agency to whom personal information is disclosed under clause 1 of Information Privacy Principle 11 of the Privacy Act 1988 shall not use or disclose the information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was given to the person, body or agency". Commonwealth Privacy Act, 1988 Authority: Signature Print Name, Rank & Registered Number Ms Street Created by Tactical Intelligence Operative Source Development Un it: October 2008 X IN CONFIDENCE Source Development Unit - Page 1 - VPL.2000.0002.0762 This document has been redacted for Public Interest Immunity claims made by Victoria Police.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of 29 October 2019 ('Black', Buick)
    VPL.0018.0006.0813 This document has been redacted for Public Interest Immunity claims made by Victoria Police. These claims are not yet resolved. ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE MANAGEMENT OF POLICE INFORMANTS Held in Melbourne, Victoria On Tuesday, 29 October 2019 Led by Commissioner: The Honourable Margaret McMurdo AC Also Present Counsel Assisting: Mr C. Winneke QC Mr A. Woods Ms M. Tittensor Counsel for Victoria Police Mr S. Holt QC Ms K. Argiropoulos Counsel for State of Victoria Mr T. Goodwin Counsel for Nicola Gobbo Mr R. Nathwani Counsel for DPP/SPP Mr T. Jeffrie Counsel for CDPP Ms R. Avis Counsel for Police Handlers Mr G. Chettle Ms L. Thies Counsel for AFP Ms I. Minnett Counsel for Chief Mr P. Silver Commissioner of Police Counsel for ACIC Ms S. Martin VPL.0018.0006.0814 This document has been redacted for Public Interest Immunity claims made by Victoria Police. These claims are not yet resolved. 09:35:10 1 COMMISSIONER: Yes. We're in open session. We're back 09:35:14 2 earlier than expected with Mr Black. Mr Black, can you 09:35:17 3 hear me?---Yes, I can Commissioner. 09:35:18 4 09:35:18 5 09:35:19 6 <OFFICER BLACK, recalled: 09:35:20 7 09:35:21 8 COMMISSIONER: Mr Winneke. 09:35:21 9 09:35:22 10 MR WINNEKE: Thanks Commissioner. 09:35:23 11 09:35:23 12 COMMISSIONER: I should just note appearances are largely 09:35:27 13 as they were when we adjourned last, save that we have 09:35:31 14 Mr Holt back for Victoria Police and Mr Jeffrie for the 09:35:36 15 DPP.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Commission Into the Management of Police Informants Final Report Volume II
    Final Report Volume II NOVEMBER 2020 Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants Final Report Volume II The Honourable Margaret McMurdo, AC Commissioner ORDERED TO BE PUBLISHED Victorian Government Printer November 2020 PP No. 175, Session 2018–2020 Final Report: Volume II 978-0-6485592-2-1 Published November 2020 ISBN: Volume I 978-0-6485592-1-4 Volume II 978-0-6485592-2-1 Volume III 978-0-6485592-3-8 Volume IV 978-0-6485592-4-5 Summary and Recommendations 978-0-6485592-5-2 Suggested citation: Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Final Report, November 2020). Contents Chapter 7: The potential effects of Ms Nicola Gobbo’s conduct as a human source 4 Chapter 8: The conduct of Victoria Police officers 75 Chapter 9: Victoria Police’s conduct: systemic issues and causal factors 199 Appendix A: List of potentially affected persons 253 7 The potential effects of Ms Nicola Gobbo’s conduct as a human source INTRODUCTION This Commission was established following revelations that Victoria Police had used Ms Nicola Gobbo, a criminal defence barrister, as a human source. The High Court of Australia in AB v CD1 characterised Ms Gobbo’s actions, in ‘purporting to act as counsel’ for people while ‘covertly informing against them’, as ‘fundamental and appalling breaches of [her] obligations as counsel to her clients and of [her] duties to the Court’. It went on to find that Victoria Police was likewise ‘guilty of reprehensible conduct’, having ‘knowingly’ encouraged Ms Gobbo to do as she did and ‘sanctioning atrocious breaches of the sworn duty of every police officer to discharge all duties imposed on them faithfully and according to law’.
    [Show full text]
  • ASPECTS of ETHICS: Confidentiality, Conflict, and Duty to Your Client
    ASPECTS OF ETHICS: Confidentiality, conflict, and duty to your client “EF's actions in purporting to act as counsel for the Convicted Persons while covertly informing against them were fundamental and appalling breaches of EF's obligations as counsel to her clients and of EF's duties to the court (AB v CD; EF v CD [2018] HCA 58 at [10].” On 3 December 2018, the Premier of Victoria announced that the Victorian Government would establish a Royal Commission to independently inquire into Victoria Police’s recruitment and management of a class of informants. The scope of that inquiry is summarised at the Royal Commission into Management of Police Informants website1: As part of its inquiry, the Royal Commission will examine the number of, and extent to which, cases may have been affected by the conduct of Ms Nicola Gobbo, a criminal defence barrister who was, at various times between 1 January 1995 and 13 January 2009, acting as a police informant with Victoria Police. She was referred to as 'EF' in recent court cases, informant '3838' and other informant numbers by Victoria Police, and was often referred to as 'Lawyer X' in the media. In addition, the Commission will examine the adequacy and effectiveness of Victoria Police’s current processes for disclosures about recruiting, handling and managing human sources who are subject to legal obligations of confidentiality or privilege, including any informants who come to the Commission’s attention during its inquiry. The Commission will also examine the use of such human source information in the broader criminal justice system, including whether these procedures should be used, and if so, how they can be best implemented in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Yearbook2019
    REFLECTING ON 2019 LESSONS FOR A NEW AGE 64TH WALKLEY AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN JOURNALISM ALL THE WINNERS INSIDE Yearbook 2019 ABOUT US OUR COMMUNITY Twitter The Walkley Awards were established in 1956 by Ampol Petroleum founder followers 21.7K Sir William Gaston Walkley. Today, the Walkley Foundation is independently funded and registered with the Register of Cultural Organisations and the Newsletter subscribers 5500 Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission as a deductible gift recipient (DGR) so that donations made to the foundation are tax deductible. Facebook followers Our funding comes from media companies, corporate Australia, government, 5450 philanthropists and individual donors. We draw on the expertise of senior AWARDS SET THE journalists and editors who are chosen from a diverse cross-section of media Instagram followers 1456 organisations, formats and backgrounds. This leadership team guides our activities and shares their experience and insights through judging, projects, GOLD STANDARD public talks and The Walkley Magazine online. Above all, they uphold the LinkedIn followers 1027 FOR PUBLIC SERVICE integrity and credibility of the Walkley processes. JOURNALISM At a time when citizens are losing faith in their institutions, top-quality reporting shows the industry is dedicated to pursuing journalism that serves democracy, writes Walkley Foundation chair Kerry O’Brien. , “LANDON AND JOEY”. WINNER OF THE , “LANDON AND JOEY”. WINNER OF THE our fundamental pillars provide the foundations of I would like to acknowledge the generous efforts of my fellow directors democracy: a strong, genuinely representative parliamentary — Marina Go, Lenore Taylor, Marcus Strom, Karen Percy and system, an independent judiciary, an apolitical police force Michael Janda — in providing guidance to Louisa Graham and the upholding the law with integrity, and a strong, free media.
    [Show full text]
  • On Professional Secrecy and Legal Privilege
    INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON PROFESSIONAL SECRECY AND LEGAL PRIVILEGE NOVEMBER 2019 www.uianet.org www.icab.es November 2019 Union Internationale des Avocats 20 rue Drouot - 75009 Paris - France Tel : +33 1 44 88 55 61 - Fax : +33 1 44 88 55 77 E-mail : [email protected] www.uianet.org Il·Lustre Col·Legi de l´Advocacia de Barcelona Mallorca, 283 - 08037 Barcelona - España Tel : +34 93 496 19 21 – Fax : +34 93 487 94 18 E-mail : [email protected] www.icab.es Contents 5 Introduction 9 Bar Members of the Task Force 13 Selected Countries and Regions: an Overview 14 Europe • UIA Report on Professional Secrecy and Legal Professional Privilege • Professional Secrecy in Spain 42 Asia • Report on Attorney-Client Privilege 55 North Africa • Some Comments Regarding Legal Privilege in Africa 59 Central Africa • Secret professionnel et confidentialité des correspondances : état de la question en République Démocratique du Congo 64 South America • Secreto profesional de la abogacía en Latino América: Argentina - Colombia - Perú 80 North America • Attorney-Client Privilege: U.S. Perspective 87 Oceania • Legal Professional Privilege in Australia – New Issues in Applying a Fundamental Principle 93 Statement on Professional Privilege 95 Collective Members’ Statement on Professional Privilege 1 Introduction ❙ Introduction Introduction irtually every developed legal system in the world shares the belief that com- V munications between lawyers and clients are, and should be, confidential. Variously termed “professional secrecy,” “attorney-client confidentiality,” “legal privilege,” and other names, the concept represents one of the most important pillars of a nation’s legal system. While some jurisdictions elevate professional secrecy to a fundamental human right, while others consider it a core legal principle, it is universally recognized as essential to the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Volume I
    Final Report Volume I NOVEMBER 2020 Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants Final Report Volume I The Honourable Margaret McMurdo, AC Commissioner ORDERED TO BE PUBLISHED Victorian Government Printer November 2020 PP No. 175, Session 2018–2020 Final Report: Volume I 978-0-6485592-1-4 Published November 2020 ISBN: Volume I 978-0-6485592-1-4 Volume II 978-0-6485592-2-1 Volume III 978-0-6485592-3-8 Volume IV 978-0-6485592-4-5 Summary and Recommendations 978-0-6485592-5-2 Suggested citation: Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Final Report, November 2020). The Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants acknowledges the traditional Aboriginal owners of country throughout Victoria. We pay our respects to them, their culture and their Elders, past, present and future, and their ancient tradition of striving for a better functioning community. 30 November 2020 Her Excellency the Honourable Linda Dessau, AC Governor of Victoria Government House Melbourne VIC 3004 Your Excellency In accordance with the Letters Patent dated 13 December 2018 and the amendments to the Letters Patent dated 7 February 2019, I have the honour of presenting to you the Final Report of the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants. Yours sincerely The Honourable Margaret McMurdo, AC Commissioner Contents Commissioner’s foreword 8 Terms of reference 10 Acronyms 11 Glossary 13 Summary of human source management terms and processes 17 List of key police taskforces and operations 24 List of key people relevant
    [Show full text]
  • Nicola Gobbo, Barrister Turned Police Informer, Says Her 'Greatest Fear Is the Police Themselves'”
    Networked Knowledge Law Reports Networked Knowledge Victoria Royal Commission Homepage This page set up by Dr Robert N Moles [Underlining, where it occurs, is for NetK editorial emphasis] On 10 December 2019 Josie Taylor and Rachael Brown of the ABC reported “Nicola Gobbo, barrister turned police informer, says her 'greatest fear is the police themselves'” Nicola Gobbo 'cries most days', but loses bid to avoid royal commission grilling Listen to the moment police lied to Nicola Gobbo to convince her to inform on clients How Nicola Gobbo's phone call quashed a gangland murder conviction Barrister-turned-informer Nicola Gobbo has told 7.30 she fears Victoria Police will kill her or leak information that could lead to her death. Key points: Nicola Gobbo was a gangland lawyer in Melbourne who became an informant to Victoria Police The High Court lifted a suppression order, revealing her identity to the media in March this year Ms Gobbo says she left the country fearing for her family's safety but her biggest fear is Victoria Police In a world exclusive, Ms Gobbo spoke to 7.30 from a secret, neutral international location. She never disclosed where she currently lives. The former gangland lawyer and her two young children have spent the past year overseas in what Ms Gobbo describes as an increasingly desperate and isolated existence. "I find myself some days thinking this is just an unbelievable nightmare that there is no end to," Ms Gobbo said. "Myself and my two young children are presently stranded overseas. We are effectively stateless because we have been left in a foreign country in which we have no rights, because obviously, we're foreigners.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicola Gobbo Explains Why She Became Lawyer X and Informed for Police”
    Networked Knowledge Law Reports Networked Knowledge Victoria Royal Commission Homepage This page set up by Dr Robert N Moles [Underlining, where it occurs, is for NetK editorial emphasis] On 9 September 2020 Josie Taylor and Rachael Brown for ABC’s Trace: The Informer podcast reported “Nicola Gobbo explains why she became Lawyer X and informed for police” As Nicola Gobbo made the frantic dash to a morning court appearance in August 2005, she had no idea she was about to upend her entire life and turn the justice system on its head. "I can vividly remember thinking I just can't keep going, I can't do this anymore," Ms Gobbo told the ABC. Even before she arrived at the courtroom, she had already crossed an ethical line. That morning she had called a Victoria Police detective and confessed that her infamous client, drug boss Tony Mokbel, was pressuring her to take on that morning's case. When she arrived at court, the case was postponed. Instead, Ms Gobbo found detectives standing outside the courtroom. She saw them as a safe haven. Amid tears, she unleashed her deepest fears and worries on the detectives. She told them her criminal clients were pressuring her to break the law. The police saw a rare opportunity to infiltrate the underworld but it would mean doing something that had never been done in Australian history: signing up a criminal defence lawyer as an informer. The events set in motion that day would eventually spark a royal commission into Victoria Police's use of informers and lead to Ms Gobbo living in hiding.
    [Show full text]